Commons Sitting of 9 May 1865

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—James Clarke Lawrence, esquire, for Lambeth.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Mines appointed; nominated May 29.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Local Government Supplemental (No. 4).*
First Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue * [129]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation * [130]; Pilotage Order Confirmation* [131]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 4 Colonial Governors (Retiring Pensions) * [133]; Forfeiture for Treason and Felony* [134].
Withdrawn—Insolvent Debtors* [24].

INDIAN OFFICERS.—ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
Lord PROBY (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household) appeared at the Bar, bearing the Answer from Her Majesty to an Address of the House—
Answer to Address [2nd May] reported as follows:—
"I have received your Address, praying for the Redress of all such Grievances complained of by the Officers of the late Indian Armies, as were admitted by the Commission on the Memorials of Indian Officers' to have arisen by a departure from the Assurances given by Parliament.
"I will give directions for an Inquiry into the effect of the Measures which have already been adopted for this purpose, and if it should be shown that ample Redress has not been afforded by them, I will direct such further steps to be taken as may be required."

CHAIN CABLES AND ANCHORS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade the following question respecting the Report made by Messrs. Robert Galloway and Thomas Gray, the officers of that Department, as to the mode of working out the Chain Cables and Anchors Act of 1864, copy of which Report was laid upon the table of the House on the 8th day of March, 1865, and which contains the following paragraph (No 13):—
  "The great majority of chain makers also object strongly to any maker being allowed to test his own cables for the purposes of giving a certificate of public proof; and many makers, who intend to go to the expense of making their machines perfect, have expressed their determination not to take out a licence, but to have all their work tested at a public machine:"
  namely, Whether any, and how many, makers of chain cables and anchors had applied to the Board of Trade for a licence to test cables and anchors under the Act of 1864, which comes into operation on the 1st day of July next; also, whether, in case any such applications have been made, it is the intention of the Board of Trade to grant licences to manufacturers, not only to test but to affix the public proof stamp, as required by the Act, OR anchors and cables manufactured by themselves.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, in reply, that the power of the Board of Trade, under the Chain Cables and Anchors Acts was simply to give effect to the provision, of that Act, and if any person applied for a licence for a testing machine, all that was necessary was that the Government Inspector should report that the machine was a proper one, and able to test the strength of the anchors and chains.

  47
  The Board had no power to ascertain whether the person applying for a licence was the manufacturer or not. Applications had been received from three manufacturers. One of these was from Messrs Brown, Lenox, and Co. Their machine was found to be perfectly sound in principle, and after some little matters of detail had been attended to, the licence was granted. But Messrs. Lloyds had been found so seriously defective that the Board had not yet determined whether a licence should be granted or not. In all probability the machine would be altered in accordance with certain requirements made by the Inspector.

ARMY—PROMOTION IN RIFLE CORPS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether a Letter, dated Aberdeen, the 17th February, 1865, and signed by five Captains, four Lieutenants, and two Ensigns of the 1st Aberdeenshire Volunteer Rifle Corps, against the appointment of Lieutenant William Jopp, a supernumerary Lieutenant in the 10th Aberdeenshire or Inverary Rifle Corps of Volunteers, to a Majority in the 1st Aberdeenshire Rifle Corps, has been received at the War Office; and whether the Secretary of State for War has approved the supersession of the Captains of the Regiment?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that the letter referred to by his hon. and gallant Friend was received at the War Office and returned to the senior officer in command of the Corps with a notification that everything respecting the subject must be forwarded to the War Office through the lord-lieutenant of the county. It was irregular and contrary to the discipline of the Volunteer Force that any such representation, or, indeed, any collective representation at all bearing upon the discipline of a Corps, should be made. If the letter in question, therefore, had reached the Secretary of State through the proper channel, it would have been their duty at the War Office to point out to the lord-lieutenant the irregularity of the course adopted. With regard to the latter portion of the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he had only to state that the appointment was recommended by the lord-lieutenant, and was accordingly approved by the Secretary of State.

CASE OF CONSTANCE KENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, be would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the proceedings against Constance E. Kent and the refusal of the Reverend A. D. Wagner, Perpetual Curate of St. Paul's, Brighton; and also of a person calling herself Superioress of St. Mary Hospital, an Institution attached to that Church, to give evidence of certain facts on the ground that the same became known to the said Reverend A. D. Wagner "under the seal of confession" and to the said Superioress under some like pretence—Whether the Government will introduce any Bill this Session for the purpose of preventing such persons as the Reverend A. D. Wagner from officiating as clergymen of the Church of England and receiving the emoluments thereof; and whether the Magistrate was justified in allowing the said Reverend A. D. Wagner and the said Superioress to refuse to give evidence on such grounds?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that Her Majesty's Government bad no intention of proposing to Parliament any Bill of the kind referred to by the hon. Member. The case to which the Question referred was one which was heard before a full bench of magistrates, and he was not aware that the magistrates did allow any witness examined before them to refuse to answer any questions which they believed to be material to the ends of justice. They received sufficient evidence to justify the committal of the prisoner for trial. If at the trial any witness refused to answer questions, the Judge who presided would deal with the case according to his discretion.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would give notice that he should at an early day call attention to the subject on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply.

  ARMY-ARMSTRONG AND WHITWORTH GUNS.—QUESTION.
  MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the Special Committee upon Armstrong and Whitworth Guns has made any Report in reference to the 12-pounders; and, if so, whether, he has any objection to lay it upon the table of the House?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that the first part of the

  49
  Report of the Special Committee, which related chiefly to the 12-pounders, had been received, and the remaining portion would be shortly in their possession. As soon as the whole of the Report bad been received he would lay it upon the table of the House; but in its present incomplete state he must decline to do so.

THE BANKRUPTCY LAWS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PAULLsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, at the earliest possible period, to submit to Parliament a measure for the Amendment and consolidation of the Bankruptcy Laws; and, if so, whether such measure will provide for the abolition of the power of imprisonment of debtors, to compel the payment of money under any judgment or order of any Court, including Comity Courts and other Courts for the recovery of small debts?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, in reply, that it undoubtedly was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, at the earliest period at which it could possibly be done consistent with the due attention which so important a subject do-served, to submit a measure for the Amendment and consolidation of the Bankruptcy Laws. As he had previously stated, it was not likely that this would be done this Session. With regard to the question whether such a measure would provide for the abolition of the power of imprisonment of debtors, and compel the payment of money tinder any judgment or order of any Court, the hon. Member was aware that the Committee had recommended generally the total abolition of the power of imprisonment for debt. That subject would therefore he considered by the Government with all the authority which the recommendations of the Committee could give it, but it was not in his power to anticipate the final decision of the Government any more on that than on the other recommendations of the Committee. He had no reason to doubt that there would be a desire to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee, provided no difficulties should arise to prevent those recommendations from being carried out.
  MR. HEYGATEsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for St. Ives whether lie intends under these circumstances to proceed with his Insolvent Debtors Bill?
  MR. PAULLsaid, that after the answer given by the hon. and learned Gentleman he should take immediate steps to discharge the Order.

  THE ELECTION FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.—QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT CLIFTONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the notification issued by a Committee at Oxford promoting the re-election of a prominent Member of Her Majesty's Government that the Election will take place in the second week in July next, has been made on the authority of any Member of Her Majesty's Government?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in answering the Question he would first of all thank the hon. Baronet for designating him as "a prominent Member of Her Majesty's Government," for he presumed that it was himself to whom the hon. Baronet alluded. He had not received the notification referred to by the hon. Baronet, and he was not quite certain that he was acquainted with its terms, lie was not aware, and he believed that his noble Friend at the head of the Government was not aware, that it meant anything more than an expression of that speculation upon the subject which generally prevailed. Ho believed that it did not rest upon the authority of any Member of the Government, and certainly not upon the authority of the "prominent Member of Her Majesty's Government" alluded to by the hon. Baronet.

INDIA—IRRIGATION WORKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether there is any objection to lay upon the table of the House a Copy of his own Despatch of 8th August last, and of the Minute of Lieut.-Col. Strachey, late Secretary of Public Works, upon the policy of the Government undertaking the construction of the necessary Irrigation Works in India, in preference to intrusting their construction to private companies?
  SIR CHARLES WOOD, in reply, said, the Minute to which the hon. Gentleman referred had been received, but it had not yet been answered, and it was not usual to produce such documents before they had been answered. When the answer had been sent there would be no objection to the production of the Minute.

AZEEM JAH (SIGNATURES TO PETITIONS)—COMMITTEE.

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [8th May],
  "That George Morris Mitchell, having fabricated signatures to several Petitions presented to this House, and having knowingly procured other fabricated signatures to such Petitions, has been guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House."—(Mr. Charles Forster.)
  And which Amendment was,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Report of the Committee be re-committed to the said Committee,"—(Lord Robert Cecil,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, in moving the Order of the Day for the resumption of the adjourned debate, said, that he wished to state to the House what he considered the wisest and safest mode of proceeding. Since the discussion of the previous evening he had endeavoured to make himself master of all the facts connected with the Report of the Committee, with a view to tender his advice to the House as to the course which they should pursue. The question was whether a resolution should be adopted with a view to commit to prison a person who was said to have been guilty of a gross breach of the privileges of the House, and he had no hesitation in saying that having regard to the gravity of the offence the Motion of the Chairman of the Committee was a right and proper one. The question under consideration was whether the resolution proposed by the Chairman of the Committee should be adopted, or the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) who desired to have the matter referred back to the Committee. The Motion was made under peculiar circumstances, and the case had been somewhat altered by the presentation of a petition from Mitchell complaining that the Committee had not afforded him a sufficient opportunity of defending himself—that the evidence of Mr. Netherclift was unfounded, and that he was prepared to refute it on oath and by witnesses, but that he had had no op-
  52
  portunity of doing so. The House ought not to entertain too easily petitions from inculpated parties impugning the decisions of Committees, and in this case, having read with great care the proceedings of the Committee, he felt quite certain that they intended to do complete justice to Mitchell. The Report contained two statements, first, that a gross and audacious breach of privilege had been committed by the forgery of various names, and amongst others the names of officers of the House; that the petitions passed through the hands of Mitchell, were got up by him and by persons employed by him, and that neither he nor they had given any satisfactory account of the matter. To that extent the finding of the Committee was fully warranted by the evidence which Mitchell had the most complete opportunity of meeting, but which he deliberately abstained from meeting. If the case had rested there there was no reason whatever why the House should hesitate. But the Committee went on to find secondly, that Mitchell had been guilty of the offence of fabricating many of the signatures to those petitions, and that two other persons acting in concert with him had been guilty of the like offence. This was a most important addition to the finding, and if the House thought it more satisfactory to give Mitchell an opportunity of producing further evidence on that subject, his impression was that the House would not like to proceed to extremities without doing so. One of the witnesses, Mr. Graham, proved that his name was forged, and Mitchell admitted that he had written his name. Mr. Graham said he had given Mitchell no authority to do so. Mitchell said that he had received Mr. Graham's authority to do so. Mitchell was not in the room when Mr. Graham gave his evidence, and was consequently not then in a position to contradict his evidence, but Mitchell was informed of the fact, and on being asked by the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) if he should like to be confronted with Mr. Graham said that he should: but he had not of his own accord taken any steps for that purpose. Mr. Netherclift an expert pointed out several signatures which he said were in Mitchell's handwriting, which Mitchell denied. Evidence was given by Mitchell and his two accomplices to show that Mr. Netherclift had mistaken his handwriting. The Committee had a right to form their own judgment upon the evidence; but as

  53
  there was just a possibility of doubt, perhaps the House would wish to grant an opportunity for further proof. The lion. Member for the King's County had desired Mr. Netherclift to make a list of the names which he believed to have been written by Mitchell, and the lion. Member then asked Mitchell whether be would like to see that list, and call the persons whose names were mentioned in it to which an affirmative reply was given. The Committee, however, did not think themselves bound, under the circumstances as they then stood, to act upon that, believing as they did, judging from his conduct throughout, that Mitchell was really playing with them. Mitchell knew perfectly well before the inquiry commenced the nature of the charge which would be brought against him. He did not appear, and the Committee ordered him to be summoned, but he could not be found at the address he had given. He was, however, at last met and served with the notice, but he did not attend that day. When Mitchell did attend he had the opportunity of cross-examining witnesses, but be played with them in the cross-examination in a manner certainly not calculated to produce the impression that he was bona fide defending himself from the charges brought against him and when, answering the question put into his mouth by a member of the Committee, he expressed a desire to call witnesses, the Committee were led to the belief that he was trifling with them, as he had been before. Besides the evidence of Mr. Netherclift and Mr. Graham, the Committee had also the evidence of their own eyes, and if the question now were merely whether their Report was one that the House might accept on matters of fact, he did not know whether any further inquiry would he necessary. He mentioned this to vindicate the Committee, who did not believe that Mitchell had any more evidence or wanted to give any; but it had become now a question of personal liberty. He should therefore propose, and he hoped it would meet with the approval of the House and receive the acquiescence of the Committee, to adopt the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, to refer the matter back to the Committee; adding, however, to the Order of Reference the petition of Mitchell presented to the House.
  MR. CHARLES FORSTERsaid, he believed that the Committee would be perfectly ready to adopt the suggestion, as it
  54
  was desirable in a case of this kind, involving penal consequences, to avoid even the least pretext for alleging that injustice had been done. But any one who read the minutes of evidence would see that Mitchell's attention was repeatedly called to the portions of the evidence which bore against him; that he was repeatedly told that the Committee were anxious to bear any explanation he might have to make, and that he did, in fact, cross-examine Mr. Nertherclift and Mr. Strutt very closely. When he was present he was confronted with the witnesses, and when he was absent he was supplied with minutes of the evidence.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he was glad that the suggestion of the noble Lord had been accepted, but regretted that the Attorney General should have thought it necessary, as the Committee were now to re-consider the case, to dwell so strongly on all the points which he thought told against Mitchell. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that twelve or thirteen persons came before the Committee, and stated that their signatures to the petitions were forgeries, and he led the House to believe that these forgeries were committed by Mitchell. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Some of them But the fact was that the expert, Mr. Netherclift, when pressed with regard to the signature of Charles Eales, a clerk of the House, declined to say positively that the writing was Mitchell's, and as to Walmesley, Smith, and the Rev. Mr. Jennings, he said the signatures were not in Mitchell's handwriting. Netherclift was then asked to write down a list of the names which he thought were in Mitchell's handwriting; and not one of those persons whose names he put down as forgeries had been examined before the Committee.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The hon. and learned Gentleman is confouning the London and Westminster petitions.
  MR. HENNESSY: Notwithstanding he was on his trial for forgery, leading questions were put to the witnesses in Mitchell's absence, and not only when he was absent, but even when he had absolutely been ordered to withdraw. The only means Netherclift had of knowing the handwriting of Mitchell was by having certain receipts placed in his hand, for he had never seen Mitchell write, and from them he pointed out the characteristics of Mitchell's handwriting. He himself with several other Members noticed the signa-

  55
  ture to a particular document, in which Mr. Netherclift had pointed out the characteristics of Mitchell's writing as somewhat different to those on the other documents signed with Mitchell's name. Mitchell was called in, and while admitting his signature to those other papers, he said that it was not on that particular document; and he added that, having injured his hand about a month before, he had authorized his clerk to sign his name for him. The clerk was produced, and said that the signature "G. M. Mitchell" to the document was in his handwriting. In that he was corroborated by another witness. After such testimony, if the case was under trial in a court of justice, Mr. Netherclift's evidence would be regarded as gone. That gentleman had contradicted himself, and had broken down on the comparison of handwriting; but be must say that he could perfectly understand an expert having so failed under the circumstances, for the inquiry was hurried, and Mr. Netherclift had not had much opportunity of comparing the writing. With regard to the statement of the Attorney General on the previous evening that Mitchell had evaded service of the summons and attendance on the Committee, it was to be observed that on the Hackney petition Mitchell gave his residence as "28, Weaver Terrace, Hackney, and on the London petition his town direction was "78, Cannon Street, West, City." But the porter of the House, to whom service of the summons had been committed, stated before the Committee that he had inquired for Mitchell in the neighbourhood of Cannon Row, Westminster, in which he could find no such number as 78, as there were but twenty houses in it. It was true Mitchell had obtained information that he was to be in some way implicated; but, so far from running away, he waited upon the Chairman of the Petitions Committee, and said he wished to offer every explanation. The hon. and learned Member for Suffolk, it was said, told the accused "the substance of the evidence," but that would not do in a court of justice. The testimony in support of so serious a charge against a man ought to be sworn testimony, and, though he had the greatest respect for the Petitions Committee, and thought they were quite right in following up the charge, he submitted that ten prosecutors were too many to be on a jury of thirteen. On the Committee of Inquiry in this case ten out
  56
  of the thirteen members were members of the Petitions Committee also. But the Petitions Committee were conducting this case against Mitchell on behalf of the House. The inquiry which would be most satisfactory to the public in a matter of this nature would be an inquiry conducted by a Committee of five members chosen by the Committee of Selection, and upon sworn testimony. He thought it an omission in their Report that the Committee had not condemned, as a breach of the privileges of the House, the practice of paying agents to procure signatures. He hoped that this discussion would not close without a Resolution declaring it to be a breach of privilege of Parliament to employ agents—no less than forty had been employed in the case—to procure signatures to petitions at a penny for each name.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he did not think the House would do any good by going into the evidence in detail, as the case was to go again before the Committee. He had read it all very carefully, and the conclusion he had drawn from it was that the Committee were warranted in the judgment they had come to, so far as Mitchell was concerned; but, looking to the course the matter had taken, he thought it right that further inquiry should be made, so as to give the accused every opportunity of defence that he would have before a court of justice. It was a serious charge against Mr. Mitchell, and the House ought to be very tender in respect of any course which they took on this occasion. But there was, in his judgment, a far more important question which the Committee would yet have to consider. The Report was not an exhaustive one as regarded another person named in the case, and, no doubt, the first application which Mr. Mitchell would make, when the Committee re-assembled, would be for liberty to cross-examine Mr. Strutt. The moment the Committee met again the conduct of Strutt must be re-considered. It was the last request of Mitchell that he should be allowed to re-cross-examine Strutt. Who was Strutt? He was fons et origo mali. He employed agents to get signatures at a penny each to petitions intended to influence the House in its decision upon a matter which had reference to private claims and public rights. The Committee in their Report blamed his conduct, hut he greatly doubted whether, upon further inquiry, they might not feel bound to visit the

  57
  conduct of Strutt with something more than mere censure. It was Strutt who held out the temptation, and if Mitchell should be able to establish that these petitions had been altered by him with a guilty knowledge of their character on the part of Strutt, there could be no doubt (however that might affect Mitchell) that Strutt would have been guilty of a still more serious infringement of the privileges of the House. Mitchell, it was perfectly clear, seemed most anxious to have it out with Strutt; he endeavoured to throw upon Strutt all the blame; and his defence (which was not, he must say, a good defence) was that he acted under the instructions of Strutt, a person already censured by Parliament. The Committee, therefore, would be bound to inquire into that allegation. The issue was not solely whether Mitchell was guilty of a breach of privilege, but who were the persons implicated, whether as principals or as accessories. There was much in the evidence to throw suspicion on the conduct of Strutt. The latter, in reply to a question put by the lion, and learned Member for East Suffolk stated that throughout all the earlier portion of the proceedings he had not the slightest reason to suppose that the signatures had been improperly obtained. He stated that he began to suspect the authenticity of the signatures in March, a day or two before the petitions were presented, but that want of time had prevented him from ascertaining whether or not they were genuine. But lie wrote a letter to Mitchell on the 31st of January, in which he used the following words:—
  "You must be very careful about the petitions, as the gentleman who has seen them makes some very candid remarks, and I am inclined, from what he says, not to require any more signatures,"
  What did this mean? Did he, when he afterwards handed those petitions to Mitchell, suspect the signatures to be false, or did he not? It appeared that Strutt, with all this suspicion on his mind, was acting as Mitchell's superior in the matter. It was the language of a man who suspected that the manner in which the signatures had been affixed to the petitions would not bear investigation. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Denman) hoped that when the matter was referred back to the Committee, they would not consider themselves precluded from investigating the whole case, and that they would inquire
  58
  into the conduct of Strutt, and that the House would not shrink from punishing him also, if they should think that good ground existed for believing that he was implicated in these fraudulent proceedings. The House must not rest content with crushing the poor fly Mitchell upon the wheel, but should inquire closely into the conduct of Strutt, who, as a solicitor in a good position, ought to be far above the tricks and arts resorted to by poor wretches who obtained signatures at a penny each; and, therefore, if guilty, would be by far the worse delinquent of the two. With respect to Mitchell, he (Mr. Denman) thought that the case against him was very strong, and he appeared, in fact, to endeavour to escape by raising a false issue, and by causing it I to be inferred that none of the charges against him should be credited because they had not all been substantiated. But he (Mr. Denman) gladly left the case again in the hands of the Committee, hoping, as he did, that they would inquire into it from beginning to end.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he was a Member of that Committee, and lie wished briefly to defend them from the charges of the lion, and learned Member for the King's County. He was glad that the conduct of the Committee, of which he had been a Member somewhat reluctantly, had been justified by such lion, and learned Gentlemen as the Attorney General and the lion. Member for Tiverton who had just sat down. The letter to Mr. Cole, one of the officers of that House, was identified as being in Mitchell's handwriting by one of Mitchell's own clerks. The Committee throughout the proceedings had been influenced solely by a desire to render impartial justice. Mitchell had endeavoured to evade the Committee by giving an address where he was not known. Unwelcome as the duty would be, he was ready to enter with them again into an investigation of the case, but he hoped that when their labours were concluded they would not again be treated with the same unfairness they had experienced from the lion, and learned Member for Sheffield who, before the evidence could have been known to the House, had compared their conduct to that of the Committee of Public Safety at the time of the French Revolution.
  MR. BONHAM CARTERsaid, that it was, in his opinion, most important that the Members of Committees which had to

  59
  conduct judicial inquiries such as that now under discussion should attend regularly, and, as far as possible, from hour to hour, and he himself was not absent for five minutes from this Committee. The Committee did not refuse to hear Mitchell, or to allow him every opportunity of defending himself. It had been stated that a great deal of the evidence was not submitted to the person who ultimately fell under the reprobation of the Committee, but it should be remembered that all the earlier proceedings of the inquiry were in the dark. The whole Committee was unanimous about one thing—namely, that forged signatures were attached to certain forms which had been furnished to Mitchell. The evidence of their own eyes was enough to satisfy them that frauds had been committed by several persons, and that Mitchell was one of those who had been concerned in them, and that evidence was confirmed by the testimony of the most distinguished expert who was commonly examined with reference to signatures. He did not think that the hon. Member for the King's County was as good a judge of the evidence as were other Members of the Committee who attended regularly from day to day, and who thus became acquainted with the manner and conduct both of all the witnesses and of the accused. Mitchell had himself been I employed as a messenger in the Petitions Office, where it was his duty to inform his superiors of any signatures which appeared to be forged, and he was therefore well aware that it was contrary to the rules of the House that any name should be signed to a petition by any one except the person to whom it belonged. The evidence before the House fully justified the finding of the Committee, and therefore there was no necessity for them to inquire into any other of the nineteen petitions.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he hoped the discussion would not be longer continued, as he did not see what good end could be obtained by such a course. He trusted that the matter would be speedily disposed of, and that the House would not again be troubled with it.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he had no desire to prolong the debate, but he did hope that the House would show every possible indulgence to the Committee in order to enable them to come to a satisfactory conclusion upon the subject.
  MR. COXsaid, that as one of the Committee who dissented from the opinion of
  60
  the majority, he was glad to see his own opinion upon the subject ratified by the House.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he believed it would be more satisfactory if a Committee of five were named by the Committee of Selection for the purpose of deciding upon this case. After the expression of opinion which some of the Members of the Committee had made in that House he was afraid that but little weight would attach to their votes upon the subject.
  MR. W. O. STANLEYsaid, he was sorry to hear the remarks which the noble Lord had made with reference to the Members of the Committee.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he had no intention of casting any imputation upon the Members of the Committee. He had referred particularly to the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken at length on adverse sides of the question.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he must state to the House that he should respectfully decline again to serve on the Committee.
  Amendment, and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Ordered, That the Report on the Committee on Azeem Jah (Signatures to Petitions) be re-committed to the said Committee.—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Petition of George Morris Mitchell presented 8th May] referred to the Committee.

RAILWAYS—(GUARDS AND PASSENGERS COMMUNICATION.)—RESOLUTION.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEY, in rising to move a Resolution upon the subject of the communication between guards and passengers on railways, said, he had to complain of the inconvenience which the business of private Members suffered from the introduction at such an hour of debates like the one with which the House has just been engaged. The question was whether this communication was possible or not. He wished to ascertain from the Government whether it was practicable or not to establish direct or indirect communication between passengers and the drivers of trains. Although the Motion which he had placed upon the paper might not—considering the science and mechanical skill in the country—settle the matter with which it dealt once for all, it would at all events tend to its settlement for some time

61
to come. His Motion was sufficiently innocent to disarm all opposition, and the subject was one which any Member might bring before the House with a fair chance of success. Nor was the subject entirely unknown to the House, for he recollected that some years ago it came under their notice under rather curious circumstances, of a somewhat sensational character, Two hon. Members travelling by railway to town, to discharge their Parliamentary duties, saw the roof of their carriage blown away and felt the floor crumbling beneath their feet. The question then was discussed in the House, and he remembered the galaxy of railway luminaries who competed among themselves as to who should first rise and should most protest in favour of a remedy being supplied. Those Gentlemen then declared that they were searching throughout Europe for the proper invention, and that when they had found it the public should have the benefit of it without any limitation as to expense. He put it to the House whether the railway authorities had ever fulfilled that pledge. If they had not done so during the long interval that had elapsed since the former discussion, he thought it would be agreed that it was time for Parliament to take the subject into its own hands if it desired that anything should be done to prevent a recurrence of accidents, which too often occurred. As far as his own observation went he could state that no direct communication existed at present between passengers and the persons in charge of the engine, and there was no means of communication between the passengers and the guard. He was told that in some cases a communication was attempted to be established between the guard and the driver of a train by a cord connected with a bell on the engine, but that was not a certain mode of communication, and even if it were there was little that was new in it, as a guard had always been able to attract the attention of the driver by applying the break. As to communication between the passengers and engine driver, he had seen no attempt to establish it, but upon the great Western line he had seen some solid sentry boxes—of such a strength as might have been directed by the Iron-plate Committee—which were of no use, because they were always untenanted, the company not liking to pay the wages of the look-out men who should occupy them. He had no doubt he should be met with similar arguments to those which were
62
used upon the former occasion, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Milner Gibson) told the House that a Royal Commission was about to be appointed which would consider this subject, and therefore it would be better to wait for their Report before arriving at any decision on the matter. He had known many cases in which three years had elapsed between the appointment of a Royal Commission and the date of its reporting. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not have the presumption to ask the public to wait for that period before he attempted to apply a simple remedy. He had found that the Order of Reference had been forwarded to the Chambers of Commerce, but not to an agricultural society, though agriculture was as much interested in the question as trade. The right hon. Gentleman well knew that Ministers often did not pay the slightest attention to the Reports of Royal Commissions. He knew a striking instance of that, in which a Commission had reported in favour of a particular harbour of refuge in Yorkshire, yet the Government had completely neglected their recommendation. Certainly the word "safety" was incidentally mentioned in the Order of Reference of the Commission, but that was all. No doubt the representatives of the railway interest would have some objection to make to his Motion. It would be said that this was an interference with railway management, and a division of the responsibility which ought to rest entirely on the shoulders of railway managers. But the law had interfered to regulate the number of passengers that should be carried in stage coaches; it had also interfered with carriers' carts and the like; but that interference had never been held to derogate from the responsibility of their managers. He was convinced that if his Motion were carried it would be the commencement of a new era in railway legislation for the safety of the public. Events which had happened recently on our railways, and which might happen again at any moment, had made this question one of the most pressing urgency, and it was on that ground alone that he had taken it up. The hon. Member concluded by moving—
"That it is the opinion of this House that the safety of the public requires that, pending the Report of the Royal Commission, some immediate provision should be made for compelling railway companies to make arrangements for establishing a proper communication between guards and passengers."
MR. LEFROYseconded the Motion,
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is the opinion of this House, that the safety of the Public requires that, pending the Report of the Royal Commission, some immediate provision should be made for compelling Railway Companies to make arrangements for establishing a proper communication between Guards and Passengers."—(Sir William Gallwey.)
MR. THOMPSONsaid, that the hon. Baronet had not made any suggestion as to the manner in which his object was to be carried out. He had been discreet enough not to suggest any remedy to the House, although he asserted that a remedy was easy. It certainly would be a very remarkable piece of legislation to inflict pains and penalties upon persons for not doing nobody knew what. However, he would assume that all that the hon. Baronet intended to do was to give expression to a feeling which prevailed extensively out of doors—that the railway companies were doing nothing to remedy an evil universally recognized. He thought, however, that he would be able to show that they had not been neglectful of their duty. A few months ago the Railway Clearing House appointed a Committee, composed of some of the ablest railway managers in the country. The Committee publicly invited tenders of inventions for effecting a communication between railway passengers and engine drivers, and the result was, that 196 inventions were laid before the Committee, and more than half the inventors attended in person to explain their plans. In the Report drawn up by the Committee, attention was directed to what had been done by a former Committee which had inquired into the subject in 1852 and 1853. He might observe that so good were the conclusions arrived at by that former Committee considered to be, that a Railway Commission appointed in France, in consequence of the murder of a Judge in a railway train, had reported that they were sound, and adopted them as the basis of its own recommendations to the Government. That Commission was composed of Members of the Government and the Legislature and eminent engineers, but had on it no gentleman connected with railways. It found that, in all probability, the Judge had owed his death to the footboards, which enabled a person to walk from one end of a train to the other, and thus facilitate the escape of the murderer, and consequently the Commission arrived at the conclusion that a connection by footboards was not one which afforded to passengers any great
64
degree of safety from attack. There was another very great objection to those footboards—namely, the number of deaths which they caused among railway servants. In Belgium, where perhaps they were more used than in any other country, no year passed without some deaths arising from their use. It was but natural, therefore, to conclude tha tif with our more extensive railway system, and more rapid rate of travelling those footboards were attached to our railway carriages, the proportion of deaths would be much larger than it was in Belgium. Railway companies could not expect nor ask their servants to discharge such a dangerous duty as passing along those footboards, and that consideration alone must prevent railway directors from employing what appeared at first sight to he one of the most effective means of communication between the different portions of a train. After the Report of the Committee of 1853 had been adopted, the company of which he was Chairman put the cord system of connection into use on 200 or 300 miles of railway, and had continued to use it; but he could not go further in commending it than to say that, in some very few cases, it might possibly have prevented accidents. The hon. Baronet had spoken of the use of sentry boxes on the trains, and had said that they were frequently untenanted through some miserable economy. But the fact was, in fogs and in tunnels it was impossible to see along a whole train from one of these sentry boxes; but the main reason why having a man stationed in one of those boxes would not be an effectual protection was that, though a man might keep his eyes in a particular direction on every journey, during days, or even weeks, yet, after thousands of trains had run, and millions of miles had been traversed without an accident, the eye would not submit to such a constant strain, apparently without result, and the lookout became careless. Experience showed that this had been the case; and he had no doubt that it would continue to be the case in future. The Committee which had recently considered the subject had reported that none of the means of communication submitted to it were such as could be recommended for general adoption. Under these circumstances it had been arranged that several of the railway companies should continue the experiments which were now in progress to test the best of the various inventions that had been sub-

65
mitted to the Committee, and which had been selected for this especial purpose. He could assure the House that to give passengers the power of communicating with the guard was by no means a simple matter. There would be no use in giving it if the guard was not required to attend to the summons; and in that case a nervous passenger might stop a train in a place where there were no signals, and where a stoppage would be attended with the greatest danger to the whole of the passengers, He trusted that after what he bad said with respect to the proceeedings of the railway companies the hon. Baronet would withdraw the Motion.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he did not think they could agree to such a Resolution as that proposed, when the hon. Gentleman had not suggested what would be a proper communication between guard and passengers. The hon. Gentleman had been rather severe on the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of I Trade for the unfeeling way in which he had spoken of the number of lives lost on railways. But he believed that there was a very exaggerated idea in the public mind as to the loss of life on railways. Only the other day he had seen an account of the loss of life in the streets of London during the last year, and it actually exceeded the whole number of lives lost by accidents on the whole of the railways in the kingdom. Last year when Mr. Briggs was unfortunately murdered, he had brought the question before the House. He had received many letters containing suggestions on this subject, but he found that there was only one mode of communication that was satisfactory, and that such a mode was not possible in this country because there was not sufficient space for the guards to pass. The loss of life to guards from the footboard system was very great on the Continent. He would urge upon the hon. Gentleman, therefore, that that was not the proper time for proposing such a Motion as the present, and that he ought to be prepared to point out the proper mode of communication between passengers and guards.
MR. LEFROYsaid, that the public owed his hon. Friend (Sir William Gallwey) a debt of gratitude for the part be had taken in this matter. There had, according to his own knowledge, been great complaints as to the neglect which had been shown. He was not prepared to state the number of dreadful acci-
66
dents, and cases of alarm that had occurred; but he differed from the statement that the number was small. His hon. Friend's argument with respect to the protection which was given to travellers by coaches was not intended as a recommendation that similar precautions should be adopted, in the same mode, on railways, which would be absurd; but he only quoted those precautions to show that the safety of the public was guarded in those days, and his hon. Friend used the illustration as an argument in favour of adopting some efficient precautions for preventing accidents in railway travelling. He (Mr. Lefroy) had had some connection with railways, and he had ever felt that a great deal more ought to be done in this direction than had been as yet attempted. The railway companies ought to show more deference to the feelings of the public by contriving some means of communication in cases of danger or illness. He quite agreed with the hon. Member opposite, that the plan of placing a man in a box would not succeed, because his vigilance would probably become relaxed as he got used to it. With respect to the point which had been raised, that trains might be stopped without sufficient cause, he admitted that might be the case, and that therefore the plan of simply making a communication between the passengers and guard would not be sufficient, but he must say that he was in favour of some such plan as existed abroad, and had urged his hon. Friend to bring that before the House. At present there was a footboard running along the train, which might possibly be made useful by widening it so that the guards might reach the passengers in case of alarm. The Government appeared to be rather indifferent about the matter, but he hoped the railway companies would take the question up in all seriousness, and with a determination to find a remedy for the existing evil, in which case there would be no necessity for any compulsory steps being adopted, the reverting to which he should very much deplore.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he was sure the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir William Gallwey) did not wish to insinuate that he was indifferent to the dangers to which passengers were exposed in the cases to which he had referred, where they expected every moment to be killed without having the power to arrest the attention of the company's servants. He sympa-

67
thized very much with the unfortunate position of those passengers; and so far from the Board of Trade being indifferent to the whole question, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lefroy), it having been repeatedly brought before them—not perhaps so much by large deputations but by railway travellers—and had received their best attention. The subject also had been discussed two or three times in the House, having been brought under its attention by the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck). It was, of course, the duty of the Board to have regard to public feeling, which existed in the country, on the question, and to bring the subject under the attention of the railway companies. Accordingly, on the 7th of July in the last year a letter was addressed by the Board to every railway company in the kingdom, calling attention to the complaints which had been made, and asking them to take into consideration the adoption of some means to meet the evils complained of, and to make some attempt to allay the sense of insecurity evidently felt by the travelling public. In consequence of that circular the subject was referred to the Railway Clearing House, which was, in fact, a conference of railway managers, representing pretty nearly all the railway companies of the kingdom, and the general railway interests. They selected a sub-committee, composed of the most competent managers, to consider this question. That sub-committee had made a Report, which had been subsequently confirmed, and had met with the concurrence of the railway managers generally, so that there was some reason to believe that they were about to adopt—indeed, he might almost say they had undertaken bonâ fide to carry into execution, if practicable—some plan which would enable passengers to communicate with guards. They had not pledged themselves to any particular plan, because they said in their Report, with great justice, that before any plan could be generally adopted it was absolutely necessary that the apparatus, whatever it might be, should be tested on some of the principal railways, before its value could be ascertained and decided upon. That was the position of the case at present. The extent of the remedy proposed by the railway companies was that passengers should be able to arrest the attention of the guards in express or ordinary trains travelling long distances without stopping at intermediate stations. The guard was not to be able to go to the
68
passenger, but to stop the train at the next station or point at which the train would be protected by fixed signal. He had read the Report and the reasoning which had led to this conclusion, and he thought it sound. The French Government went into this question very fully, and judged it unadvisable there should be a system of communication between passengers and guards, being of opinion that the evils it would give rise to would be greater than those which were sought to be averted. Although the managers here were prepared to give passengers a limited means of communicating with the guard, they could not enable a passenger to stop the train wherever he liked, because that would be to imperil the life of every other passenger in the train—for one that was following might dash into it and smash it to atoms; neither could they allow the guard to go to the passenger, on account of the great risk of the loss of his life in doing so when a train was travelling rapidly. He thought, however, the plan they proposed would tend very much to meet the evil complained of, and he trusted the Motion would not be pressed to a division. If his hon. Friend had sought to deal with the question by means of a Bill he would have found it more difficult than he imagined, because it was one thing to frame a Resolution affirming the desirability of doing a particular thing and another to frame the clauses of a Bill in such a manner as would carry out the object; and if the hon. Baronet tried to frame clauses to carry out a measure in accordance with his Resolution he would soon find how difficult it would be to frame them in such a manner as to carry his point without inflicting other and perhaps worse evils. He did not mean to say that there was any insuperable mechanical difficulty in securing communication between passengers, guards, and drivers, and when once the principles to be carried out were determined upon there would be very little delay in acceding to the wishes of the public. The question, however, was not in a state to require immediate penal and compulsory legislation. The railway companies, stimulated by the letter from the Board of Trade, had taken the matter in hand, and as soon as they had ascertained by experiment which plan was the best they would adopt it.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, that while giving the right hon. Gentleman credit for his sympathy with unfortunate passengers imprisoned in a railway carriage

69
who were being killed, burnt, or maimed, he could not help thinking (hat the Government had been very apathetic on this subject. He would repeat what he had formerly said, that so long as the Government exhibited the same want of energy which had hitherto characterized them, so long must they be held responsible for the continuance of these accidents whenever they occurred. The Government admitted the existence of the evil, but contented itself with forwarding circulars to the railway companies, requesting their attention to the subject. The result of these energetic measures was, that the railway companies were just beginning to make a few experiments as to the best mode of affording means of communication between the passengers and the guards. The hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Thompson) complained that no suggestion had been made as to how this communication was to be effected. He should like to know whether if some definite and effectual measure had been proposed by Government, they would not have had the railway directors of all the companies crying out that the Government were interfering in railway management, and endeavouring to deal with things which they did not understand. It appeared that the Committee appointed by the railway authorities had been sitting for many months, that they had examined 196 schemes, and that they had not been able to come to a conclusion upon any one of them. He considered that the course they had pursued was trifling with the House. The fact that the Committee appointed by the Clearing House had considered 196 schemes, and had prepared a Report, was no compensation to the public for the risk which they ran of being burnt, maimed, or murdered on railways. There were two difficulties, and two only, in the way of the establishment of such a communication as was recommended by the Motion before the House. One was that railway directors invariably refused to act upon any suggestions which came from out of doors, and the other was that they would not spend a shilling they could possibly avoid, even to prevent the occurrence of accidents. The hon. Gentleman opposite said, that if the railway companies were to adopt a certain mode of proceeding they would kill a certain number of railway servants, and the effect of the argument was that, in order to avoid killing railway servants,
70
they must lull a certain number of passengers. It was idle to tell the House of the large penalties they incurred as a consequence of accidents acting as a deterrent to them in this course of proceeding; for the accidents and the compensation were both on the increase. In this particular case, it was obviously a question of money. It had been admitted that if we had the means of locomotion for the guard to allow him to circulate from one end of the train to the other, the cause of complaint would be removed. The guard could inquire into any emergency or cause of alarm without stopping the train until he had ascertained what it was. If carriages were properly constructed, arrangements might, with the sacrifice of a small amount of space, he made to enable the guard to pass with safety from one carriage to another; and it was, therefore, clear that this was a mere question of expense. Whether his hon. Friend should divide or not, he trusted that the time was nut far distant when by the voice of public indignation the House would be told in terms which it could not misunderstand that it should not any longer be permitted to sanction a system of traffic under which the blood and bones of passengers were sacrificed to save the pockets of railway companies.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, that he considered the attacks made upon the Government and the railway companies unjust. They had taken the matter into their consideration, and had formed a plan which they believed would accomplish good, and they ought at least to have the credit of doing what they could until the plan they proposed had been tried. At present it was impossible for the guard to communicate with passengers when the train was proceeding at anything like average speed, on account of the extreme rapidity of the motion, which would render loss of life to the guard imminent were he to make any such attempt. He was sure that the company of which he was a director would most readily adopt any invention which experience should prove to be a successful one. If the plan under consideration was found to answer he had no doubt it would be carried out by the railway companies with a liberal spirit.
MR. PEASEsaid, it had been his lot to fill the position of a railway director for a great number of years, and he must utterly disclaim the remarks of the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) as to this question being a matter of money. He

71
could hardly suppose that the House would endorse the sentiment, that the railway hoards, constituted as they were of men of business, men prominent in works of benevolence, thought nothing about the comfort of passengers; nothing but about the remunerativeness of their undertakings. That they said, "Slaughter whomsoever you will, and spend no money to redress an evil which renders the lives of the public insecure." The railway companies studied nothing more seriously than the comfort of their passengers, and the instructions given to the gentlemen appointed to attend the conference on the subject were to adopt the best plan, without reference to money, because they felt that they were gentlemen to whose keeping was intrusted the most precious lives. It was alike ungenerous and unjust to taunt them with something worse than remissness—namely, indifference to human life, when they did all they could not only to secure safety but comfort to passengers. He thought that such extravagant charges as those brought by the hon. Member for Norfolk would only recoil on the heads of those who brought them.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken had, perhaps, never heard the proverb, "Companies have no souls." They all knew that the individuals with whom they dined, and whom they met in society, were quite different persons when they became associated in corporation. They were to understand that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Milner Gibson) was pledged that the railway companies, within a reasonable time after the result of the experiment, would find a means of communication between the drivers of engines and passengers, through the guard. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that the means of communication, which it was hoped would be discovered by the Railways Committee, was to be applied only to express and fast trains, which were to be brought up at the next signal station after receiving the intimation to stop. But suppose the recurrence of such an accident as that which had recently occurred between Reading and London, would the right hon. Gentleman say that the train was to continue in progress to the next station? However, after what had taken place, as the House appeared to consist mainly of railway directors, and he had therefore little chance of carrying it, he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his Motion.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he had
72
given no pledge of anything. What he had stated was, that the railway companies, in reply to the Government circular, had recognized the desirableness of having a communication between passengers and guards, to be exercised under certain limits, and promised that if a practical scheme were discovered it should be generally adopted.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman name a time when the scheme will be adopted?
MR. MILNER GIBSON: If the hon. Gentleman will move for the papers he can have them.
Motion, by leave, withdraicn.

MINES.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Act, for the regulation and inspection of Mines, and the allegations of the petitions presented to the House upon the subject from the Miners of Great Britain. He said, that as there was no opposition to the Motion it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House with any observations. It had been said that the Committee had been moved for rather late. That, however, was not his fault or that of the petitioners, and it would be the duty of the Committee to proceed as rapidly as possible to make up for time which had been lost. He concluded by presenting petitions from 10,000 miners, in addition to those already presented.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the notice had been worded so as to be vague in its terms; he had, therefore, suggested the terms which the hon. Member had now adopted. A great many petitions had been presented from miners, complaining of what they conceived to be some defects in the administration of the Act for the Regulation and Inspection of Mines. As that Act had been in operation for some years, it was a fit subject for inquiry, though he doubted whether a Committee could now conclude its labours in time to make a Report during the present Session, If the hon. Member thought it right to take the Committee under these circumstances, there would be no objection.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he thought a Royal Commission, which would have been able to visit localities and look personally into the matter, would have afforded a more effectual means of inquiry that a Select Committee. At the same time, he thought it would be very dangerous for the House to resist the demand made

  73
  by so many persons engaged in the trade, and if no better result should arise from the inquiry than a proof that the claims of these persons were not overlooked, the time occupied in the investigation would not have been lost.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was not aware that a Royal Commission had been asked for. He had understood that a Committee was what it was wished to obtain.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he wanted to know whether inquiry were to be limited to coal mines, or to extend to different metalliferous mines, such as those in Cornwall?
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the Act mentioned only referred to coal and iron stone mines, and the petitions were limited in the same way.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was to be regretted that there was so little time left forgoing into the question. He agreed with the bon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Fergusson) that a Royal Commission would have afforded a more satisfactory means of inquiry than a Select Committee. The case made out by the working miners was so strong, that it was impossible for the House to resist the inquiry. He hoped the Committee would sufficiently appreciate the strong feeling that existed on the part of these men, to determine that something should be done. It was very desirable that they should, if possible, make their Report this Session; but if that could not be done, they might recommend the Government to appoint a Royal Commission.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the operation of the Act for the regulation and inspection of Mines, and into the complaints contained in Petitions from Miners in Great Britain with reference thereto, which have been presented to the House during the present Session."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  And on May 29, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. AYRTON, Mr. LIDDELL, Mr. NEATE, Mr. GREENALL, MR. LAWSON, Mr. ARTHUR MILLS, Mr. KINNAIRD, Mr. FRANCTS SHARP POWELL, Mr. JACKSON, Colonel DUNNE, Mr. CLIVE, Mr. FER-RAND, Mr. DUSSEY VIVIAN, Lord ROBERT CECIL, and Mr. BRUCE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (No. 4) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BARING, Bill to confirm a certain Provisional Order under "The Local Government Act, 1858," relating to the Hastings District, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BARING and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 132.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock.